The Challenge of Improving Homework Processes and Benefits
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper is in line with our prior works conducted mainly on parents and teachers’ points of view regarding homework. In Quebec, Canada, homework is perceived as a near-universal practice. However, school communities are strongly urged to engage in a collective reflection over homework at a local level in order to document the different avenues that could embrace the main stakeholders’ concerns. This paper investigates how teachers and parents can act as agents of change in such a process. The research-intervention was based on Cultural-Historical Activity Theory using the Change Laboratory methodology. It draws upon the concept of expansive learning and suggests that participants agree with the nature of the problem and model together new solutions. The present study focuses on the transformative agentic actions that were put into place during two Change Laboratory sessions. This analysis deepens our understanding of teachers’ role and expectations towards parents as well as parents’ comprehension of the teachers’ role and of their own role in the context of their child’s homework. The authors conclude that there is a need to have teachers, parents and the school principal engage with one another to develop a common vision of the issues at stake.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".